Re: [boost] Review - Logging Library

From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-10 21:46:07

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the review.
> * What is your evaluation of the design?
>
> Introduces alot of new concepts for something relatively simple, logging.  A
>
> study of the headers suggests a boostified functional style, but with lots
> of macros,
> which some developers here have no objection over.  I on the other hand
>   
Just to make sure , you're talking about this: 
http://torjo.com/log2/doc/html/macros.html, right?
> would like to see less, or even no macros in the public interface.  A
> functional, lambda style
> logging interface should be adequate.  If a macro is needed, suggest it as a
>   
Ok.
> work-around,
> but dont force it on the user in the example(s).
>
>   
I see..
> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
>
> Overall, I didnt like the informal style, but I was able to get the
> information I needed.
> Author tries to be too "cute" or "friendly".  Author should get rid of
> informal comments
> and replace them with more professional language.
>
>   
Point taken.
>
> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
>
> Potential is high.   Would I use this library.  As it stands, no.  The
> tradeoff/benefits
> still suggest to me that logging requirements are too application specific,
> and
> this library doesnt change that equation.  If it had a simple, boostified,
> lambda
> interface, with no macros, and no learning curve, I would probably use it.
>   
When talking about "lambda interface", do you mean to use functors, in 
general? Like, for filtering and logging?
> * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
>
> No.
>
> I would evaluate it again, if the author would
> create a more boost friendly, lambda style public interface.
>
>   
Well, it seems I have no choice ;)

Best,
John

-- 
http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert
http://blog.torjo.com
... call me only if you want things done right